Supreme Court takes up abortion protest case

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday
will wade into a divisive case that pits the free speech rights
of anti-abortion protesters against public safety concerns
raised by women's healthcare providers.

The nine justices will hear a one-hour argument over a
challenge to a Massachusetts law aimed at ensuring access for
patients at clinics that offer abortions.

Anti-abortion protesters challenged the law, saying it
violated their freedom of speech rights under the First
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by preventing them from
standing on the sidewalk and speaking to those entering clinics.
The protesters say their main aim is to counsel women in an
effort to deter them from having abortions.

The law was enacted in part because of safety concerns
highlighted by violent acts committed against abortion providers
in the past. In 1994, two abortion clinic workers were killed
outside a clinic in Brookline, Massachusetts.

The case specifically concerns people who want to protest
outside three Planned Parenthood facilities that offer abortions
in addition to other health services for women in Boston,
Springfield and Worcester.

The protesters have urged the Supreme Court to consider
overturning its 2000 decision, Hill v. Colorado, that upheld a
similar law in Colorado.

Steven Aden, an attorney at the Alliance Defending Freedom,
a conservative Christian group that backs the protesters, said
the state was targeting people for expressing a particular view.

"This case is about whether a government has the
constitutional ability to cordon off a large section of public
space and make it a First Amendment-free zone," he said.

Lawyers for the state of Massachusetts say the law was
enacted to deal with a potential public safety problem.

Martha "Marty" Walz, who heads the Planned Parenthood
operation in Massachusetts, helped pass the law in her former
role as a state legislator.

She said in a call with reporters last week that the law was
carefully drafted not just to ensure safety of patients but also
to protect the First Amendment rights of protesters.

The law "applies equally to everyone" and does not prevent
protests from taking place, she said.

Just having the buffer makes a big difference because
previously protesters would block the way, right up to the
doorway, and would shout in people's faces from close proximity,
she said.

Two other states, Montana and Colorado, have similar laws.
Municipal ordnances and court injunctions have also been used in
various states to create similar buffer zones.

A ruling is expected by the end of June.

The case is McCullen v. Coakley, U.S. Supreme Court, No.
12-1168.

advertisement

NOTE: All comments for this article are moderated.
Your comment will be published pending approval.